The Role of Urban Gardening in the Maintenance of Rural Landscape Heritage in a Large City: Case Study of Brno Metropolitan Area, Czech Republic

Abstract

The territorial development of the city of Brno during the 19th–21st centuries meant not only the growth of built-up areas (residential, industrial, commercial), but also the absorbing of segments of the ancient rural agricultural landscape. Within the current borders of the city of Brno, a number of green areas have been preserved, which have spontaneously developed from the original agricultural landscape, without being the result of urban planning. In half of the cases (17 out of a total of 34), they have still preserved the traditional small-scale division of land. Among the 10 medium-sized Moravian cities (between 30,000 and 400,000 inhabitants) in the historical region of Moravia in the east of the Czech Republic, the presence of 34 remnants of the ancient rural landscape in the city of Brno is quite exceptional (in Ostrava only 1; in other cities 0). The subject of the research is the inventory of such segments within the city borders and an attempt to explain their location in the city, state, focusing on the role of natural factors, land ownership and personal and recreational interests of residents. Segments of the ancient rural cultural landscape were identified by comparing the current landscape on aerial photographs with the landscape image on cadastral maps from the 1820s–1830s. Additional data on their natural and cultural properties were obtained through archival and field research. The segments were classified according to their degree of preservation and forms of threat. The results show that the remains of the ancient rural cultural landscape in the city of Brno have generally been preserved in locations that, due to the slope of the slopes, unsuitable building subsoil and poor soil, but locally on warm southern slopes, were not suitable for construction for the time being. Urban gardening contributes to their preservation and these areas are part of the city’s greenery. However, urban gardening also contributes to the destruction of these remnants. In 17 cases, the land was completely re-divided, built up with recreational facilities and overgrown with trees due to poor care. Another 17 locations are threatened by this process due to ignorance of their historical value, although this is essentially a positive development in terms of benefits for the city’s residents—land users. Although the Master Plan of the city of Brno foresees the existence of garden colonies in the future, it does not address the importance of the best-preserved segments as historical heritage. Community agriculture can play a positive role in maintaining segments of rural heritage within the city.

1. Introduction

The rapid territorial growth of cities has been a characteristic feature of European landscapes since the Industrial Revolution [1]. Urban expansion has taken very diverse forms depending on the economic situation of the country, the region, and the city itself, as well as on local natural conditions, demographic dynamics, political frameworks, and many other factors. This growth has almost involved the absorbing of rural land previously influenced by the city only indirectly, primarily through economic relations between town and countryside.

Former rural areas became integrated into the city mainly through residential development, transport networks, and technical infrastructure [2]. Yet incorporation does not necessarily mean that no traces of the rural landscape remain once it becomes part of the city. In developed countries, the process of urban expansion is regulated and controlled in various ways. The key instrument is the urban master plan, which predetermines how different parts of the incorporated rural landscape will be used. This process, however, requires that incorporation be addressed primarily at the administrative level.

Today, we increasingly observe the opposite phenomenon: suburbanisation, which brings urban features into the countryside without administrative unification. In such cases, a rural municipality may become “urbanised” in terms of its built environment (construction of urban-type objects and infrastructure), its technological connections (linking local utilities to city networks), and even its population psychology (a growing share of residents tied economically and socially to a nearby city), etc. [3].

During the Industrial Revolution—particularly after 1850 in the Czech lands—urban growth occurred largely through administrative measures that absorbed rural municipalities to medieval-founded cities. Until the 1950s, rural settlements were characterised by finely divided plots of agricultural land, including arable fields, orchards, meadows, vineyards in favourable conditions, and forests. Under state socialism, collectivisation transformed these smallholdings into vast cooperative fields cultivated by machinery. However, certain pockets of small-scale parcel structures survived, usually in areas where natural conditions limited mechanised farming, or where consolidation pressures had already been met and some land was left with its original owners.

The fate of such rural land-use structures differed markedly between municipalities that were incorporated to cities. In Brno, the persistence of segments of rural landscapes offers an opportunity to examine the natural and vicinal reasons for their survival and to assess the risks threatening their continued existence. It should be emphasised that many formerly rural plots underwent partial conversion yet retained agricultural functions within the city. In some cases, they were transformed into allotment colonies, which represent a continuity of rural land use, unlike modern recreational gardening sites. Nearby forests are mostly spared from the dramatic development of the city in the conditions of the Czech lands due to their traditional recreational importance.

This contribution aims to explain the reasons for the preservation of the remains of the ancient rural landscape in the city of Brno with regard to natural conditions, spatial connections within the city limits, current forms of threat and the relationship of urban gardening on areas that were used for agricultural purposes before urban development arose around them. These parts of the original rural landscape have varying degrees of success in avoiding urbanization and thus serve the cultivation of useful or ornamental plants and recreation. A significant protective effect is exerted by gardening associations that have taken over rural agricultural land and use it intensively and, thanks to their influence on the city administration, maintain it. This historical heritage is thus an important part of the so-called urban greenery.

2. State of Knowledge of the Research Topic and Region of Work

2.1. Urban Gardening as a Specific Form of Land Use in Cities

Gardening within urban settlements is not a new phenomenon. Gardens have accompanied human habitation since antiquity. From the early Middle Ages onwards, monasteries and noble residences were surrounded by gardens. Their functions were not solely aesthetic: they also supplied vegetables, fruit, and medicinal herbs [4,5,6,7,8]. A significant milestone in the spread of allotment colonies was the 19th century, when gardening also became common among the middle classes [9,10,11].

The establishment of allotment colonies increased substantially during the Industrial Revolution, when large numbers of rural inhabitants moved into cities. Gardens were typically located near working-class districts and served not only for subsistence vegetable production but also as an important social and community-building space [12]. With the expansion of urban construction, many such colonies disappeared, though some still exist today—for example in Leipzig (Germany), Nottingham (England), Lviv (Ukraine), and Ljubljana (Slovenia), where they are recognised as part of cultural heritage [13,14]. The significance of gardening for both self-sufficiency and social life is also confirmed by recent research [11,15,16].

The current popularity of urban gardening in Western cities is reflected in the abundance of dedicated websites. A common justification for these initiatives is the ambition to “help nature return to the city” [17,18]. Yet this is more of a marketing slogan than a reality, since “nature” in its ecological complexity never existed in cities. Rather, what lies behind this trend is a desire for greenery and for productive activity with both practical and aesthetic outcomes. The practical outcomes are represented by the cultivation of home-grown fruit and vegetables [19,20,21], while the aesthetic side relates to the growing and arrangement of flowers and shrubs [22], contributing to stress relief [23].

A distinctive feature of modern urban gardening is the creation and care of gardens in very limited spaces: in front of houses, backyards, balconies, rooftops, or in hanging containers [22]. Such “miniaturisation” can be achieved in multiple ways [24]:

1. container gardening, 2. tiered or vertical stands, 3. community gardens, 4. rooftop gardens, 5. hydroponics and aquaponics (soil-free systems), 6. miniature garden beds divided into sectors for individual plants, 7. balcony flower boxes, 8. microgreens and sprouts grown on window sills, 9. intercropping and companion planting (combining fast- and slow-growing species).

The theoretical inspiration for greening cities derives from Ebenezer Howard’s concept of the Garden City, which envisioned human life in harmony with nature [25]. Whether public or private, the “Green City” concept essentially rests on artificially reintroducing elements of nature into an already built or planned urban fabric.

Numerous studies have addressed urban gardens and gardening, though they have generally approached the subject from historical, architectural, health-related [13,26,27,28,29,30], or sociological perspectives [31,32]. More recently, studies have examined gardening within the broader framework of urban agriculture [33,34,35,36,37,38]. Among the current trends are so-called community gardens, which are predominantly interpreted as a sociological phenomenon [29,32,39] or gardens as a tourist destination [40]. Social aspects of allotment gardens in Poland and Germany have been compared [41].

The aim of this study was to investigate the reasons why certain areas of ancient, pre-industrial rural agricultural landscape larger than 10 ha have survived within Brno. These areas were already in existence in the first half of the 19th century, during the first comprehensive land-use mapping in the Czech lands—the so-called Stable Cadastre. A further objective was to assess their present state, in which they predominantly serve the needs of urban gardening.

A related aim was to evaluate the current condition of these areas, identify the factors threatening them, document the processes leading to their transformation or destruction, and assess the role of urban gardening in their preservation or decline.

2.2. Brno City: Historical Development Data

Brno is the second-largest city in the Czech Republic, with a population that has been fluctuating around 400,000 since the 1990s [42]. The city lies at the interface between the Hercynian Bohemian Massif and the Tertiary Western Carpathians [43]. About three-quarters of Brno’s territory is situated in the hilly terrain of the Brno Highlands (part of the Bohemian Massif) to the north, northwest, west, and southwest. The remaining quarter, in the south and southeast, consists of flat fertile lowlands belonging to the Dyje–Svratka Graben, a unit of the Outer Western Carpathian depressions. The city’s elevation ranges between 190 and 497 m a.s.l. (Figure 1). The city also lies on an important climatic boundary between relatively humid, moderately warm-to-moderately cold conditions in NW and relatively dry, warm climate in the opposite SE side [44,45,46].

The medieval core of the city (141 ha) was established on a hill above wetlands at the confluence of the Svratka, Ponávka, and Svitava rivers [47]. The first written record of Brno dates to 1091. Between 1231 and 1237, when four independent settlements merged to form a town, later fortified with walls. From 1642 to 1918, Brno was the sole capital of Moravia within the Czech Crown Lands and the Habsburg Monarchy, and later in interwar Czechoslovakia (1918–1939). During World War 2 (1939–1945), it was the administrative center of Moravia within the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. Following administrative reforms in 1948, Brno has permanently held the status of a regional capital.

Throughout its history, Brno has expanded territorially (Figure 2), absorbing rural municipalities. Most of their original cadastral territories have since been built over, but some preserved their rural land structure and patterns of use. Because these segments date from before the main wave of the Industrial Revolution in Moravia (after 1850), they represent relics of pre-industrial landscapes within the city.

In the second half of the 19th century, Brno became one of the most important industrial cities of Austria-Hungary. Its territorial growth reflected its increasing administrative and economic importance. The first absorbing in 1850 incorporated twenty seven suburban municipalities in nine cadastres into the historic center (back then 1.19 km²).

A major expansion occurred in 1919, when 23 municipalities, including two towns, were added. The town of Líšeň was absorbed in 1944.

Further expansion occurred in 1960 under socialism period. Only three cadastral areas were affected: a small agricultural area to the south and extensive forests, recreational zones around the Brno Reservoir, and farmland to the northwest. Large areas were later covered by housing estates, especially after 1970.

Two further expansions in 1971 and 1980 (finally to 229.64 km²) brought more land, mostly forests to the north and west (important for recreation) and flat farmland in the south (designated for industrial development).

Land use within Brno’s current boundaries is highly diverse, reflecting the city’s size and significance (

Table 1. Land use in Brno as of 30 December 2019.

land Use Type	Area (ha)	% of Total
agricultural land	7634	33.2
(of which gardens)	(2061)	(27.0)
forest	6396	27.8
water bodies	452	1.9
built-up areas	2111	9.2
other land	6425	27.9
total	23,015	100

Source: Summary of land resources from the Czech Real Estate Cadastre [48,49].

, Figure 3). Gardens cover 8.96% of the city’s area, or 27% of its agricultural land. The majority of these gardens are located on former rural parcels with historic small-scale land division.

Brno has a long tradition of gardening [50]. Through territorial growth, it absorbed areas of rural landscape with preserved structures and garden-linked development, but also open farmland in both flat and hilly terrain. Particularly in southeastern districts with favourable conditions (e.g., Líšeň, Tuřany, absorbed in the early 20th century), gardens supplied fresh vegetables not only for home consumption but also for sale at local markets [51].

Over the last 30 years, gardening has shifted from a primarily productive function to a recreational and leisure activity, with production taking a secondary role. Nonetheless, in the context of “greening” everyday life and the growing demand for healthy food, productive functions have been regaining importance. Fresh vegetables and fruit are now cultivated not only for ecological reasons but increasingly also for economic ones.

In terms of administration, today’s allotment colonies may take the form of private ownership, allotments to manage by the Czech gardeners’ union, or various associations [52]. Some of the gardens are located on state or municipal land organized in a similar way. Many of these sites adjoin forests or actively managed farmland.

A specific segment of pre-industrial landscape in Brno can therefore be defined as an area that currently displays: 1. a land-holding structure similar to that before 1850, i.e., prior to the main wave of the Industrial Revolution in the Czech lands, 2. a comparable pattern of land use to that of the same period, 3. a visual appearance broadly consistent with the mid-19th century landscape.

The criterion of “similarity” refers to the persistence of parcel size, shape, and location. While the use of individual plots may have changed, and some parcels have been consolidated or subdivided within “local size norms,” the overall composition and mosaic of land use has remained intact.

It can be assumed that such ancient pre-industrial segments reflect a relatively uninterrupted technical, socio-economic, and cultural development since the Thirty Years’ War era (after 1648). They largely escaped the deep socio-economic transformations that reshaped the wider rural environment. and may be the subject of historical cultural heritage.

3. Materials and Methods

The identification of pre-industrial segments followed a sequence of steps (Figure 4). This is followed by a purposeful evaluation of the identified and confirmed segments of the pre-industrial landscape. The process is carried out gradually for individual cadastral areas (at a map scale of 1:2880) according to old Stable Cadastre maps from the 1820s and 1830s, taking into account the cadastral division of the area of interest.

These GIS based procedures focused on comparing locations with small land divisions identified in the current orthophoto from 2020 (ground resolution about 0.2 m) with similar areas captured on old cadastral maps (at the map scale 1:2880). This is followed by field verification of the pre-mapped areas, then a purposeful evaluation of the confirmed segments of the pre-industrial landscape. The process is carried out gradually for individual cadastral areas due to the archiving of old maps according to the cadastral division of the area of interest. By comparing the image on the current orthophoto and on the relevant cadastral map, an area with a similar land structure was delimited in both sources as an indicator of the remnants of the ancient rural landscape. Then, its contours were vectorized in GIS. The area inside the contour was also calculated in GIS by SW ArcMap 8 from ESRI, Redlands, California, USA. Qualitative properties of the segment of the ancient landscape were determined in the field. A similar procedure, for example, was used for similar purposes in Belgium [53], in Slovakia [54,55], in the UK [56,57,58], and in Germany [59].

With regard to the garden areas currently located in the neighborhoods of family houses, inside blocks of residential development and allotment gardens, which were created by detailed redistribution of land owned by the city, in dimensions of up to 10 ha, this area was chosen as a reliable size criterion for recognizing the identified rural segments of the landscape in the city of Brno as historical pre-industrial heritage.

Subsequent qualitative evaluation of the segments preliminarily distinguished four categories of preservation:

Quantitative assessment (1)—classification into three size categories:

A—pre-industrial landscape site (10–50 ha);

B—pre-industrial landscape district (50.01–100 ha);

C—local pre-industrial landscape (>100 ha).

Qualitative assessment (2)—classification into four preservation categories:

1—Exceptionally well preserved: more than three-quarters of the original field structure and at least half of the historical land uses (including boundaries) remain, with only minor deviations from cadastral maps.

2—Well preserved: more than three-quarters of the field structure survive, though historical land uses have been altered (e.g., arable land converted to meadows, orchards, or vineyards). Boundaries have become overgrown, but the landscape character remains largely unchanged.

3—Satisfactorily preserved: at least half of the field structure persists, though some parcels have been merged. A portion of original land uses survives, but new forms (orchards, vineyards, garden cottages) have been introduced, alongside numerous threats.

X—Without historical value: areas with small-scale division but with fundamentally altered field structures and dominant new land uses (e.g., cottages, swimming pools, sports fields, ornamental gardens) inconsistent with 19th-century maps.

In general, the most valuable sites in category 1 would deserve protection as cultural heritage. Unfortunately, no such sites have been found in the territory of the city of Brno. Some sites in category 2 would deserve the attention of the public and the city administration, as long as they retain distinct rural features. However, all of them are under threat.

In addition to the 34 historically documented large-scale allotment areas identified in this study, Brno contains numerous other allotment colonies established in the first half of the 20th century (e.g., Kraví hora I and II), as well as many smaller allotment sites scattered across nearly all districts, except in the compactly built-up city centre. These modern colonies were not included in this study, as they do not constitute pre-industrial heritage.

4. Results

4.1. Segments of the Original Rural Landscape Within the Current Metropolitan Area

Currently, the City of Brno encompasses 48 cadastral units. Analysis of recent colour orthophotos revealed 34 areas of varying size, all characterised by a fine-grained parcel structure typical of the pre-industrial landscape as documented in the Stable Cadastre from the first half of the 19th century. However, 17 out of these 34 areas have undergone significant transformations. They retain only partial traces of historical land-use patterns, and many were restructured into small plots with seasonal or permanent housing, falling into the qualitative category “X”.

The Brno metropolitan area expanded through successive annexations, occupying and building over all suitable land. Pre-industrial rural parcels and forested areas thus remained outside the built-up zone. While residential construction dominated the hilly periphery in an arc from the southwest through west and north to the east, industrial and commercial development concentrated in the south and southeast. Steep or rocky terrain largely remained forested, or preserved remnants of rural land division.

Since the transition to a market economy in 1990, these trends have intensified. Although residential construction slowed in scale, it continued primarily in peripheral districts. Commercial and industrial development spread to smaller sites around the inner city, typically on the most accessible and fertile soils. New construction has so far avoided large-scale destruction of fine-grained parcel mosaics. Nevertheless, conversion is taking place in a more subtle, gradual manner, as garden cottages are rebuilt into seasonal or permanent housing.

Currently, 11 of the 17 relatively well-preserved rural segments are located adjacent to forests (see Figure 3), which makes them attractive targets for residential development. Since their soils are of lower agricultural quality, they are less strictly protected under national regulations, making them vulnerable to building pressure despite formal restrictions. As a result, besides forests (legally protected from conversion), large arable fields (prohibited for development), and brownfields (often in unsuitable valley-bottom locations with poor ventilation; cf. [60]), these rural remnants represent the last major land reserve for potential construction in Brno.

The natural environment of Brno is well represented in a synthetic map of natural environment classes (NECs), which integrate geology, relief, soil, topoclimate, and hydrological conditions. This map was compiled by the authors from available analytical datasets [48,49,61,62]. Comparative analysis (

Table 2. Representation of natural landscape units, occurrence of segments of ancient rural cultural landscape in them and their relationship to the limiting roles of forest and development in the territory of the city of Brno.

No.	Natural Environment Class	NEC Share within Brno City Area (in %)	ALS Share in NEC (in %)	Forest Share Within NEC (in %) as Limiting Factor	Development Share Within NEC (in %) as Endangering Factor—Location Preference
1	loess plateaus with luvisols and chernozems	18.19	8.39	1.03	42.77
2	granite plateaus with cambisols	2.84	2.43	55.90	19.95
3	sandstone plateaus with cambisols	0.10	1.03	5.64	0.00
4	plateaus on metabasic rocks with cambisols	0.43	0.02	18.35	60.00
5	plateaus on Neogene deposits with luvisols and chernozems	2.53	2.44	0.00	15.63
6	limestone plateaus with rendzic leptosols	0.87	0.00	52.10	1.89
7	gentle slopes on Devonian conglomerates with cambisols	0.20	0.77	0.00	60.82
8	gentle slopes on loess with luvisols and chernozems	17.02	16.09	13.21	44.73
9	gentle slopes on Neogene deposits with luvisols and chernozems	2.37	1.66	9.08	24.17
10	gentle limestones slopes on with rendzic leptosols	0.63	0.00	66.59	0.25
11	gentle granite slopes on granite with cambisols	14.01	17.00	70.07	11.17
12	gentle sandstone slopes with cambisols	0.64	1.11	55.50	2.09
13	gentle slopes on metabasic rocks with cambisols	3.70	20.02	54.99	16.60
14	fluvial sandy terraces with arenosols and chernozems	7.16	0.70	2.40	15.53
15	steep limestone slopes with rendzic leptosols	0.66	0.00	84.04	1.14
16	steep slopes on Devonian conglomerates with cambisols	0.09	0.00	24.92	43.68
17	steep loess slopes with luvisols and chernozems	0.33	1.41	32.97	12.79
18	steep slopes on Neogene deposits with luvisols and chernozems	0.15	1.08	29.39	14.73
19	steep sandstone slopes with haplic leptosols and cambisols	0.51	0.03	82.64	0.37
20	steep granite slopes with haplic leptosols and cambisols	10.47	18.40	82.42	3.62
21	steep slopes on metabasite rocks with haplic leptosols and cambisols	1.42	5.16	75.09	11.67
22	alluvial plains with fluvisols and gleyic chernozems	15.65	2.27	10.13	24.67
∑	total	100.00	100.00

Explanations: natural environment classes (NEC), ancient landscape segment (ALS), shaded—lines and numbers of special interests, bold underlined (widely extensive preferred type of environment for abundant ALS conservation), bold (widely extensive type of environment where abundant development limits the occurrence of ALS), italic (widely insignificant type of environment favourable for the occurrence of ALS). Source: own data processing.

) of the share of each NEC within the city, their proportion of preserved rural segments, and their current degree of urbanisation allows for a qualified assessment of both the reasons behind their survival and their vulnerability to future development.

The conditions responsible for the survival of pre-industrial landscape segments within Brno can be derived from Table 2 (Figure 5). Attention must be directed in particular to those values that reach at least minimal significance. A conventional limit can be considered a value of 5% in the case of the share of the natural environment class in the total area of the city of Brno, at least 5% representation of the type of preserved segment of the ancient landscape in the natural environment class (Explanation: With a total area of the city of Brno of 22,964 ha, 5% of the city area is 1148.2 ha. If 5% of this share is occupied by the remains of the ancient rural cultural landscape, it is 11.482 ha, which is approximately the minimum size of one segment of the ancient landscape. In no NEC type with a share of 5% in the territory of Brno, even in the ideal case, is ALS represented by 5%, which theoretically would be sufficient for the occurrence of at least 1 ASL). Smaller values are negligible. The same is true for at least 5% representation of development in the natural environment type, as an indicator of the interest of builders in this type of natural environment. Only a higher representation of development can be considered more significant. For forest cover, the opposite criterion applies: types with at least 50% forest cover are of interest, since this limits their usability for other human activities (except recreation).

In order to evaluate the relationship between natural environment types and the occurrence of preserved pre-industrial landscape segments in Brno, pairs of conditions were established. These pairs (in grey in Table 2) consist of the following:

• Environment types covering at least 5% of the city’s total area, combined with the occurrence of preserved segments regardless of their proportional share;
• Environment types in which preserved segments make up at least 5% of the total area of that environment type, regardless of its areal representation within Brno;
• Environment types that simultaneously meet both conditions, with at least 5% representation of each characteristic (highlighted in grey in Table 2; see figure above).

The tabular overview shows that the preservation of ancient rural landscapes has been most strongly favoured by the following:

• Gentle loess slopes with luvisols and chernozems (17.03% of Brno’s territory, with 16.09% of preserved segments, however, with high competition from development as a threat, line 8);
• Gentle granite slopes with cambisols (14.01% vs. 17.00%, with high competition from the forest as a barrier to spread, line 11);
• Steep granite slopes with shallow cambisols and leptosols (10.47% vs. 18.40%, with extremely high forest competition, line 20).

By contrast, flat relief—plateaus and plains—does not support the survival of ancient landscape remnants, usually due to development pressure. The presence of remnants there is significantly lower than the share of flat terrain in Brno’s area (lines 1, 14, 22), because it represents suitable development areas. An interesting case is the concentration of remnants on gentle and steep metabasic slopes with relatively fertile cambisols (lines 13 and 21), although this is likely related to the frequent occurrence of such terrain close to the city center (Figure 5).

When topoclimatic conditions are considered (Figure 6), a clear local preference for relatively warmer positions emerges. On one hand, this reflects the advantage of more favourable temperature regimes; on the other hand, relatively cooler areas were historically forested. In higher and moderately colder elevations, farmland in flat terrain was scarce, and consolidation into large cooperative blocks had occurred earlier (often before addition to Brno) and faster. In lower and warmer positions, pressure for consolidation was weaker, most likely due to the far greater extent of agricultural land available for unification. When creating the climate map, the authors used bioindicator data on the extent of forest vegetation stages as well [62].

Within the very warm topoclimatic zone (mean annual temperature up to 10 °C), nine preserved segments occur wholly or partly. The warm topoclimatic zone (8.1–9.0 °C) contains 13 segments. Only four segments extend marginally into the moderately warm zone (Ta < 8 °C), typically at shaded footslopes of valleys.

It is evident that the very warm flatlands close to the historical urban core no longer host preserved pre-industrial landscape segments, as they were lost to intensive urbanisation. By contrast, very warm (southern, sunny) slopes extend into higher elevations, where steep terrain and less favourable soils made development less attractive, thus enabling remnants of ancient rural areas to survive. However, these areas are currently among the most endangered locations due to planned individual and mass development of family dwellings.

The identified segments of the rural pre-industrial landscape serving contemporary urban gardening essentially represent almost every cadastral area of the city.

For analytical purposes, the 34 identified localities were divided into two categories (see Figure 2):

• Relatively well-preserved segments—with parcel division and land use comparable to that documented in 19th-century cadastral maps (

  Table 3. Recorded relatively well-preserved segments of ancient rural landscape within the City of Brno and their current threats.

  No.	Well Preserved (Size/Quality Class)	Threats
  1	Bosonohy_1 (B/2)	reduction in arable land, forest encroachment, cottage development, residential construction
  2	Bosonohy_2 (B/3)	arable land abandonment, forest encroachment, cottage development, suburban housing growth, residential construction
  3	Brněnské Ivanovice (A/2)	reduction in arable land, overgrowth by woody vegetation, cottage development
  4	Černovice (A/3)	arable land abandonment, overgrowth by woody vegetation, cottage development
  5	Dvorska (A/2)	reduction in arable land, overgrowth by woody vegetation, cottage development, expansion of built-up area
  6	Kohoutovice (B/3)	arable land abandonment, penetration of residential development, cottage development
  7	Komín (B/3)	reduction in arable land, cottage development, invasion of residential housing
  8	Královo Pole (A/3)	arable land abandonment, overgrowth by woody vegetation, invasion of residential housing
  9	Líšeň_1 (A/2)	reduction in forest and arable land strips, renewed overgrowth by woody vegetation, parcel amalgamation, cottage development, expansion of residential housing
  10	Medlánky-Řečkovice (A/3)	reduction in arable land, parcel amalgamation, cottage development, expansion of residential housing, apartment construction
  11	Nový Lískovec (A/3)	arable land abandonment, overgrowth by woody vegetation; in the upper part expansion of residential and cottage housing, in the lower part apartment construction
  12	Obřany (B/3)	arable land abandonment, overgrowth by woody vegetation, cottage development
  13	Přízřenice (A/2)	reduction in arable land, expansion of residential housing, commercial and industrial construction
  14	Sadová (B/3)	arable land abandonment, overgrowth by woody vegetation, cottage development
  15	Staré Brno (A/3)	arable land abandonment, overgrowth by woody vegetation, expansion of residential and cottage housing
  16	Žabovřesky (A/3)	arable land abandonment, overgrowth by woody vegetation, cottage development
  17	Židenice (A/3)	reduction in arable land, forest encroachment, cottage development, residential construction

  Source: own data processing.

  ).
• Severely degraded segments—where original parcel structures have been almost completely destroyed by land redistribution, new construction, or abandonment (

  Table 4. Severely degraded segments of pre-industrial ancient rural cultural landscape within the City of Brno and causes of their degradation.

  No.	Severely Damaged (Quality Class “X”)	Destruction Factors
  1	Bohunice-Pisárky	extreme fragmentation of parcels, many garden cottages
  2	Bystrc NW	extreme fragmentation of parcels, many clusters of garden cottages
  3	Bystrc E	dense residential development
  4	Černovice S	extreme fragmentation of parcels, many garden cottages, many abandoned parcels
  5	Horní Heršpice	extreme fragmentation of parcels, many garden cottages
  6	Chrlice E	parcels heavily combined
  7	Líšeň N	paddocks, fragmentation of parcels, residential development
  8	Líšeň W	extreme fragmentation of parcels, many garden cottages
  9	Maloměřice NE	parcels heavily combined
  10	Maloměřice SE	extreme fragmentation of parcels, area split by trolleybus route, many garden cottages
  11	Mokrá Hora	paddocks, extreme fragmentation of parcels
  12	Obřany W	extreme fragmentation of parcels, many garden cottages
  13	Přízřenice-Dolní Heršpice	extreme fragmentation of parcels, many garden cottages
  14	Soběšice	extreme fragmentation of parcels, residential development
  15	Štýřice	extreme fragmentation of parcels, many garden cottages
  16	Tuřany	mostly paddocks, large plots with islands of different owners
  17	Žebětín	residential development, extreme fragmentation of parcels, many garden cottages, ornamental gardens

  Source: own data processing.

  ).

Relatively well-preserved remnants of rural landscape within the metropolis represent a valuable subject of study, useful for demonstrating the geographical conditions under which they originated and in which they have been preserved to the present day. Many of these very conditions also explain why they have, to some extent, escaped the pressures of urbanisation.

Table 4 documents the processes that led to the actual loss of the original structure and appearance of the segment of the ancient rural landscape in the city. A particularly critical factor is the interaction of extreme soil fragmentation (often accentuated by detailed terracing of slopes) for recreational cottages (Their built-up area is permitted, depending on the location within the city limits and the purpose of the area, to (a) up to 40 m², gardens, garden cottages with a residential attic, exceptionally up to 50 m² near the Brno Reservoir; (b) 40–80 m², recreation, residential attic; (c) over 80 m², even with a permanent housing permit. The principle is that only 20% of the plot area can be built on, the remaining 80% is reserved for greenery [63]. The Brno Master Plan further supports this trend. The prospect is also the introduction of community gardens in the Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program [64]. Urban gardening in connection with recreational construction thus leads to the destruction of segments of the ancient landscape during this otherwise very beneficial activity, quite obviously without knowledge of their value as historical heritage. Other forms of destruction of these segments are far less significant. The joining of plots of land (sometimes with the aim of their later use for large-scale development) and the growth of continuous urban development up to the boundaries of the segments, which are thus transformed into ordinary gardens, are worth noting.

4.2. Examples of Identified Segments of Pre-Industrial Landscape Within the Urban Development

The presented case studies illustrate preserved fragments of the ancient pre-industrial rural agricultural landscape within the Inner City of Brno. These areas represent characteristic examples of landscape heritage that continue to serve urban gardening purposes today.

The locality of Staré Brno, covering 20 hectares, is situated in the city centre on the southern slopes of Žlutý kopec hill. It lies adjacent to the historic settlement of Staré Brno (urbanized since the 12th century) and to the Brno Exhibition Grounds, in close proximity to the medieval urban core (Figure 7). The area was incorporated into the city during its first expansion in 1850.

In the mid-19th century, the land was cultivated in the form of narrow vineyard plots, with smaller areas used as arable fields interspersed with trees. Today, the site is a mosaic of private gardens and allotment colonies, established on leased land owned by the City of Brno and the Heineken brewery. The surrounding urban development dates from the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. In the current master plan, however, the area is designated for public amenities and residential development, which puts its continued existence at risk.

The segment of ancient landscape at Židenice–Vinohrady forms a complex of gardens located within the cadastral districts of the Židenice and Vinohrady quarters, on the southwestern and southern slopes of a hill at the edge of the extended inner city. The area was absorbed during the most extensive phase of Brno’s expansion in 1919. It covers an area of 43 hectares (Figure 8).

In the mid-19th century, this landscape consisted of a mixture of narrow orchard parcels, meadows, arable fields, and vineyards. Today, it is still composed of privately owned gardens with a similar structure of land use, although the vineyards have largely disappeared while the original plot pattern has been preserved. The locality is bordered on the south and west by a mix of residential buildings of various ages (with many dating to the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries), and on the north and northeast by housing estates of prefabricated apartment blocks constructed in the 1980s. The main threat to this landscape lies in the increasing construction of permanent housing within the area itself, as well as the encroachment of large-scale development projects expanding from its edges.

The preserved remnant of the traditional rural cultural landscape of Dvorska (Figure 9) is located on the southeastern edge of Brno, within the cadastral district of the same name, which was incorporated into the metropolitan area in 1971. The segment, situated in gently undulating terrain, covers an area of 10.01 hectares. The village itself was established at the end of the 18th century on redistributed lands of a dissolved manorial estate.

In 1835, plots of various sizes sloping gently toward a stream were used predominantly as arable land, while the parcels oriented to the southwest were rich in fruit trees. The original land division has survived to the present day. However, owners now manage their parcels in diverse ways, which is visually reflected in the mosaic of land use. The proportion of arable fields has declined significantly in favour of grass-covered areas. The number of fruit trees and shrubs has increased, and riparian vegetation has developed along the stream. Residential construction has already cut into the northwestern edge of the original farmland, and several houses have been built within the segment itself. Extremely small, fragmented parcels in the southern part have been merged.

5. Discussion

The issue of the relationship of the city to the rural agricultural heritage is completely absent in the professional literature. Considerable professional and lay attention is paid to urban greenery, its condition, protection and threats, planning, theoretical and application aspects. The aim of this paper was to assess the influence of natural factors on the preservation of segments of the ancient rural landscape, which, due to the spread of the city, have entered the urban area. The attention of the paper was also focused on the estimation of the threatening factors resulting from the position of these segments in relation to the land use in their vicinity in the city. This topic is also practically not discussed at all in the professional literature.

A key indicator of risk for the survival of these historical landscape segments is the combination of preserved land-use patterns, forest cover, and urban development within a given natural environment class. In other words, the particular mix of these factors can create a critical vulnerability.

The main threat to the persistence of remnants of the ancient rural landscape (even when transformed into garden plots) is the expansion of built-up areas—primarily residential, and in flat terrain also commercial. In the Czech Republic, forests are legally protected, and obtaining an exemption for permanent forest removal to allow construction is virtually impossible. This means that land currently covered by forest cannot serve as a reserve for relocating garden plots.

The greatest hypothetical risk therefore occurs where three conditions coincide: a high proportion of existing built-up areas (indicating strong developer interest), a high proportion of forest (which blocks relocation options but simultaneously increases the area’s attractiveness for housing), and a sufficiently large share of landscape segments (indicating an area sizeable enough for redevelopment). The presence of such combinations also requires that the given natural environment type is adequately represented within Brno to make large-scale construction feasible. Risk-prone combinations of these factors can be identified in Table 2. The locations most at risk are highlighted in the accompanying map (Figure 5).

In 2022, Brno adopted a new Master plan (territorial development plan), which acknowledges: “Areas designated for housing are largely exhausted, so there is no space left for new apartments.” [67]. The new master plan identifies nine development zones, four of which directly threaten the survival of five relatively well-preserved segments of the ancient rural landscape within Brno. Although these represent a lower qualitative category of landscape remnants, they still sustain a relatively balanced coexistence between cultural landscape heritage and urban gardening. On the other hand, the Brno City Council supports gardening, as gardens serve as urban greenery. However, the idea of transforming some gardens into public parks has been emerging for a long time.

The territorial growth of cities has historically always taken place through incorporation of the surrounding rural environment. The only exceptions are those cities that created their own expansion space, typically at the expense of water bodies, mined or otherwise degraded land, or underused/unused marginal areas. Brno, as an inland city, expanded exclusively at the expense of neighbouring rural communities. From these villages, Brno absorbed the following (Table 5):

(a) The original built-up cores, (b) privately owned plots of smallholders, (c) public (municipal) lands—usually meadows and forests, less frequently water bodies and wetlands, and (d) properties of large owners and users (including areas held by the state).

From the original open countryside, the territory of Brno has preserved, to date, essentially intact forest lands, large monocultural fields of arable land, and remnants of fine-grained parcel patterns. Of the original mosaic of narrow strips of arable land, meadows, and permanent crops, only a very small portion has survived in a form resembling the state of about 200 years ago.

Table 5. Conversion of non-forest rural landscape following incorporation into the City of Brno.

No.	Type of Original Rural Land (Excluding Forests)	Classes of Visual Transformation of Rural Space Within the City
		Partial	Deep	Total
1.	original village cores	retention of single-storey building with rural character	isolated multi-storey construction	only the street floor plan has been preserved after the complete reconstruction of the buildings
2.	private plots of smallholders	some retained by small-scale builders or owners	redistributed land and built up by developers for housing	meadows merged for industrial development
3.	public (municipal) lands	redistributed land for small-scale builders, users and owners	redistributed land and built up by developers for housing	redistributed land for industrial, service and transport development
4.	properties of large landowners and users	redistributed land for small-scale builders, users and owners	redistributed land and built up by developers for housing	redistributed land for industrial, service and transport development

Source: Author’s qualified estimate; precise statistics will be the outcome of further research.

Table 5. Conversion of non-forest rural landscape following incorporation into the City of Brno.

No.	Type of Original Rural Land (Excluding Forests)	Classes of Visual Transformation of Rural Space Within the City
		Partial	Deep	Total
1.	original village cores	retention of single-storey building with rural character	isolated multi-storey construction	only the street floor plan has been preserved after the complete reconstruction of the buildings
2.	private plots of smallholders	some retained by small-scale builders or owners	redistributed land and built up by developers for housing	meadows merged for industrial development
3.	public (municipal) lands	redistributed land for small-scale builders, users and owners	redistributed land and built up by developers for housing	redistributed land for industrial, service and transport development
4.	properties of large landowners and users	redistributed land for small-scale builders, users and owners	redistributed land and built up by developers for housing	redistributed land for industrial, service and transport development

Source: Author’s qualified estimate; precise statistics will be the outcome of further research.

Urbanization (and economic) pressures largely bypassed these sites due to more complex natural conditions—typically slope gradients, often combined with poorer soil quality or, in places, the disadvantageous (northern) exposure of the local topoclimate. Peripheral location also played an important role, but only relative to the “inner-city periphery.” From the 1960s onwards, urban development extended far beyond these areas toward the outer boundaries of the city as a whole. By integrating data on urban growth, natural conditions, land use, and spatial expansion, these facts can be clearly demonstrated.

Of the 34 localities of original rural landscape that were incorporated into Brno during its territorial (and administrative) expansion, only half have been preserved in good condition. Symbolically, the area of Staré Brno, directly adjacent to the historic core, is also included among the preserved segments, since it has “survived” every attempt at redevelopment under all political regimes that have come and gone in the city over the past 200 years. In terms of its current condition, however, it lies at the threshold of what can still be considered a “preserved segment of ancient rural landscape” in the city centre. However, in the Brno Master Plan, this area is reserved for services and housing [67].

All 34 segments of the ancient rural landscape predominantly serve as sites of urban gardening. In 17 cases, however, the land use has shifted toward permanent residential construction (housing), subdivision into small garden plots (mostly around 200–300 m², often on municipally owned sites, typically with terraced slopes), or the establishment of recreational facilities (pools, small sports grounds), storage spaces, and similar uses. In the better-preserved segments, private ownership predominates. Strips of privately owned plots have retained both their original geometric patterns and their modes of use more effectively. Even where municipal land is present (usually recognizable by subdivision into numerous small parcels characteristic of urban gardens), these areas are more resistant to redevelopment.

By contrast, sites under municipal or state ownership (many acquired after the confiscation of property belonging to the former Jewish community or to Germans expelled after World War 2), despite retaining to some degree their original land-use patterns, are increasingly treated as reserve areas for future construction—much to the concern and opposition of their current tenants. Forest and large-scale agricultural lands are better protected by law against development, although the level of legislative protection declined somewhat after partial privatization in 1989.

It is therefore unsurprising that the territorial expansion of built-up areas will almost certainly proceed first into relatively well-preserved landscape segments with fewer individual owners—who, by definition, cannot form a strong community capable of resisting urbanization pressures. In contrast, those segments of the ancient rural landscape that have been subdivided into small gardens and associated with recreational functions (cottages, swimming pools, playgrounds, “party corners,” terraced slopes, fruit tree and shrub planting, etc.) often create well-organized communities that are more resilient to development pressures. This is true, however, only when the users are also landowners. Where the users are merely tenants of land owned by the municipality, the state, corporations, or a few large landowners, such communities and their sites are far more vulnerable. Lease contracts can simply be terminated, and the land becomes available to developers.

Where the land is owned by the state or the municipality, elected representatives (including those representing the tenants themselves) can play an important role in deciding the future of these segments. Once such areas are exhausted, the currently still relatively prosperous remaining remnants of Brno’s rural landscape will come under direct threat. However, there is also an idea from the Brno City Council to create replacement areas for gardens on the far outskirts of the city, which is disadvantageous for elderly garden users.

6. Conclusions

It is a notable peculiarity that the concentration of preserved remnants of ancient rural landscapes within the territory of Brno is higher than in its wider surroundings, as demonstrated by the inventory of such segments across the historical region of Moravia (the eastern third of the Czech Republic). In the more rugged terrain forming a semicircle north of the city, stretching from west to east within a 15 km radius, no segments of ancient rural landscape have survived at all. To the south, within a similar distance, only a handful can be found. Their occurrence becomes more frequent only in the cooler plateaus of the northern highlands and at the foothills of the younger Carpathian uplifts to the south.

This heterogeneous distribution pattern of preserved rural landscape segments around Brno suggests the presence of a difficult-to-define “big city factor,” closely linked with the popularity of urban gardening. Around other (and always smaller) Moravian towns, a comparable situation has hardly developed. It seems that the population of the metropolis (in this case Brno) exerted sufficient political pressure—perhaps justified by the recreational needs of its inhabitants—to ensure that suitable rural landscape segments within reach of the city centre were retained, at least to a fluctuating degree. Even if they have gradually transformed into garden plots primarily serving leisure purposes, they have nonetheless survived. It is possible that this effect will continue into the future, contributing to the attractiveness of the metropolis itself, despite the increasing mobility of its population. While greater mobility enables access to recreational areas over a much larger radius, these are typically less suitable for gardening (mainly due to insufficient levels of supervision and security).

Based on experience in Brno, urban gardening exerts a paradoxical influence on rural landscape heritage. It acts as a protector primarily in peripheral parts of the city, where larger private plots have been preserved. Although some visual fragmentation occurs here (often through subdivision and rental of parts of larger plots), other owners maintain arable land use. As a result, the original parcel structure has been relatively well preserved, along with partial continuity of traditional land-use forms.

In contrast, deep in the inner city, urban gardening has often led to extreme fragmentation of land, even if still within the framework of the original parcel system. As users shifted entirely toward recreational uses—abandoning even the forms of “recreational agriculture”—this heritage was effectively destroyed. What remains are only the basic contours of the original land division, now fragmented into small to miniature plots dominated by leisure facilities, ornamental plants, and paved surfaces. A similar phenomenon occurred in the Czech Republic in the capital city of Prague [68].

The “phenomenon of urban gardening” can therefore be regarded only with caution as a factor protecting the remnants of ancient rural landscapes absorbed by the expanding metropolis. On the other hand, urban gardening on areas of rural landscape heritage plays a very positive role in offering recreational spaces for city residents and their beneficial leisure activities. The new Master Plan of the city of Brno supports both urban gardening and the conversion of gardens into public parks. The reason is that there are 36 m² of gardens per inhabitant of the city of Brno, but only 3 m² of public parks [63]. This would lead to a decrease in both garden areas and segments of the ancient rural cultural landscape in the city. Some support for their continued existence is the stimulation of the development of community gardens. These always contain a share of arable land, which could lead to the revitalization of land use to a closer form to the state two centuries ago [64].

From the perspective of the orientation of further study of the phenomenon of “segments of rural cultural landscape in the city”, the research conducted here on the influence of natural factors and forms of threat on the monitored subject and its historical value, can be followed up by sociological research among users of segments of the ancient landscape. This can reveal the state of their awareness of the historical value of the segments. It can offer them suggestions for adapting ideas of the Community Supported Agriculture to the key characteristics of the segments with the aim of their preservation. In parallel, monitoring (preferably aerial) of the segments can be carried out in order to capture changes in land use for the purpose of their evaluation and interpretation for decision-making about their future.